I forgot most of what little I learned in semiconductor physics and analog design courses in college, but I remember enough to know that nothing about computers is magic. Nothing. That knowledge gives me confidence that I can figure out anything having to do with computers given enough quiet time.

On the other hand, I don't really know much about cars. If I had a 2024 model year car and something went wrong with it, I'd very quickly run up against a wall of arcane-seeming knowledge that I don't have easy access to. I don't know where I would start to learn everything about cars from scratch like I did with computers.

There might be a name for this, but I don't know what it is.

computers contain transistors and how transistors work is by magic.

before that, tubes. tubes also work by magic.

before that, relays, which are based on electromagnets. electromagnets work by magic.

> how transistors work is by magic

ok but it's "just" semiconductor band-gap physics, which my monkey grug brain can kind of just barely make out, if I squint

> tubes also work by magic

tubes work by "just" thermionic emission, or "tube physics", which grug brain has a better handle on

> electromagnets work by magic

okay, you've got me there, physics grug brain think magnets high magic.

tubes work by not just thermionic emission (that'd be a diode) but also by a sort of uncanny leveraging of inverse square laws in free space surrounding the grid. when the first tube amplifier was invented, it was by accident, it wasn't understood how it worked.

You can make computers (in a non economical fashion) using pipes of water and water actuated valves. This can be done in a manner _highly_ analogous to transistor, tube or relay machines. That was what convinced me that computers are not magic.

> nothing about computers is magic

In this vein I think about nelhage's "Computers Can Be Understood" from time to time - https://blog.nelhage.com/post/computers-can-be-understood/ .

Exactly this is the reason I do it. The "knowledge" part will fade if it isn't applied regularily. If I manage to convey a deeper understanding of how things are intertwined or at least the feeling that it is actually possible to understand things and that curiosity is king, that is all I can do.

It is an art school after all. I will never turn all of them into low level systems programmers, but I can give them enough understanding of the tech world that it can become the topic of art without making people with a tech background cringe.

And some of them take this as a starting point to go way deeper.

I absolutely love that you do this. There appears to be a trend to discount the value of knowing the low-level details of these sorts of things -- but even if you never actually work at that level, knowing what's happening "behind the scenes" increases and deepens understanding and can make high-level things that seem arbitrary or nonsensical make sense.

First principles and curiosity > blithe unconcern about the "magic box". Likewise, coders who don't have enough understanding all the way down the stack including hardware are merely engineer posers in it for a paycheck.

Thanks a lot JohnFen.

One reason for writing the post and trying to create GIF-images from binary, was to come as close as possible to GIF format and especially the LZW-algorithm. To understand it in an intuitive way. To get a bit closer to the minds who created the algorithm in the first place.

atoav: this sounds like at great exercise. Have you written any public article about that?

The main reason for writing this article was * My curiosity - what secret is behind all strange bytes in a graphical file * To spend some time doing something weird, that I know have zero effect of my career and no chance of giving and benefits or profit in the future.